Wednesday, May 28, 2014

The timing and nature of the Lord’s
Evening Meal became an issue between the annual celebrations of 1880 and 1881.
G. M. Myers faulted Russell and others for the memorial dates they advocated.
We discuss this in more detail later in this chapter. Others objected too.
Russell discussed this in the May 1881 Zion’s WatchTower:

A number of letters received seem to
indicate that the occasion was very generally celebrated among the scattered
“twos and threes” “of this way.” We presume that it was celebrated in about
twenty places. All who wrote expressed the feeling of solemnity and
appropriateness, attaching to the celebration on the anniversary, rather than
at any other time. One or two brethren questioned the date announced – suggesting
that by the almanac it would fall on the 12th instead of the 14th of
April. To these we reply that the calendars in most almanacs are arranged upon
astronomical calculations and are seldom exactly in harmony with the Jewish
methods, which seem to be based on the eyesight. Some almanacs publish the
Jewish calendar, and we used it in ascertaining when the “14th day of the first
month,” Jewish time, would come. The moon is used to symbolize The Law or
Jewish nation, which reached its full at the time of Jesus' presence, but began
to wane when he gave them up and died. The moon was at its full on the 14th of
April and began to wane; this seems to agree with the Jewish calendars and
therefore we observed that time.

One sister wrote expressing
disapproval, and asks, Why not go back to the Law in everything as well as in
keeping the Passover? Our sister is in haste; we did not suggest the observance
of the Passover as instituted by The Law, but the observance of “The Lord's
Supper” instead of it. Nor did we suggest this as a law, believing that “Christ
is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” (Rom.
10:4, and 7:6). But who will say that we may not celebrate the death of our
Lamb on the anniversary, for, “as often as ye do this, ye do show forth the
Lord's death.”

Most of those who transitioned from
being Bible Examiner readers to WatchTower readers were familiar with Russell’s
reasoning, though not necessarily agreeing with it.

Position
of Women

The
propriety of women preachers seems not to have been discussed by the Allegheny
believers before 1876. Advent Christians allowed women preachers. Others did
not. The question came to Russell in early 1881. Someone asked him to “please
explain 1 Cor. 14:34. Let the women keep silence in the churches, for it is not
permitted unto them to speak; but let them be under obedience as also saith the
law.” Russell answered:

It is not for us to say why, when God
gives no reasons. Neither can we tell why Jesus sent none of the noble and good
women who believed on him to preach, when he sent first the twelve and then the
seventy before his face. However, much may be said of good accomplished by
women in the temperance cause, etc., we nevertheless believe that this
scripture has never been disregarded with impunity. We believe woman to be a
type of the church, and man the type of Christ the head of the church, and we
might draw the lesson that we, the spouse of Christ, are not to dispute or
instruct in the church, but listen to the voice of our Head – give ear to his
word.

His answer did not quiet the issue, and
it was raised again in May 1881. Russell was confronted with this question:

Bro. Russell: How do you interpret
Phil. 4:3. "I entreat thee with me in the gospel...whose names are in the
book of life." And Acts 1:14: "All continued with one accord
in prayer and supplication with the women." And 1 Cor. 11:5: "Every
woman that prayeth or prophesieth (teaches)?"

Russell’s
reply probably disappointed Advent Christian and Life and Advent Union adherents
who approved of women evangelists, but he took a more liberal position than
many in that era. He said:

We understand these scriptures to
teach, that women did a work in the apostles' days which was approved and
appreciated by them and by the Lord. Yet we believe that women usually spoke
only at the smaller gatherings, and that when Paul said "Let the women
keep silence in the [congregations,] he probably had reference to the public
gatherings, at which it was the custom to have more or less of a debate. In these
public debatings, Paul thought a woman's voice would be out of place, and this
is the opinion of most thinking men and women to-day, though we think that it
has by many been carried to an extreme, forbidding them to pray or teach on any
occasion, even in more private assemblies of Christians, and this we regard as
an error.

God has arranged that the man and
woman are representative of Christ and his Bride the church, and this rule by
which the husband is the head of the wife is always maintained in scriptures.
(Though there are exceptions to the rule in nature.) And probably this is one
reason, that men have always been given the more active and public work of the
ministry and women more the work of assisting and more private teaching, yet
equally as acceptable to God. So Christ is the active agent in carrying out his
own plan. He is the great minister of all, and we as His church do a lesser
part and yet an acceptable part, well pleasing to God.

Issues
surrounding women’s rights and responsibilities would persist, fueled by the
woman’s suffrage movement, and by Russell’s distorted view of marriage. Russell
believed the phrase “and the two will become one flesh” meant that the woman’s
personality was subsumed into her husband’s. While we consider this issue in
chapter [#], most of this discussion is more appropriate to the third book in
this series. All we need notice now is that this issue persisted; that it was
aggravated by a less than Biblical view of women and by attitudes common in the
era. Even Russell noted this, though we think unintentionally, when he wrote:
“This is the opinion of most thinking men and women to-day, though we think
that it has by many been carried to an extreme” Russell’s comment reveals a
conflicted view of authority. Thinking men and women among his contemporaries
were persuasive authority when they agreed with him. They were not when they
held a contrary opinion.

Ango-Israeliteism

George
Storrs believed the Anglo-Israelite theory. We discussed it in volume one,
which you should review. Despite a modern denial by a one-time Abrahamic Faith
writer, the belief that the “lost tribes” of Israel were Anglo-Saxon peoples was
pervasive among One Faith/Age-to-Come believers, so it isn’t surprising that
the issue came Russell’s way. Citing verses from Galatians and Romans, Russell
observed: “Abraham was the father of two seeds, the children of the flesh
[twelve tribes of Israel] and the children of promise,
[faith], of which two seeds Ishmael and Isaac were types.” The promises belong
only to the spiritual seed, “the children of promise.” So it didn’t matter if
the English, the Germans, and Americans were somewhere under the skin
Israelites:

We know not whether the people of
these United States and of England are the natural, fleshly descendants
of Israel or not. It could make no difference
as regards the spiritual “prize of our high calling in Christ Jesus.” If they
are, and were made to know it, the effect of those earthly promises would
probably be to blind them to the spiritual prize as it did the others, 1800
years ago. If they are of the natural seed, they will receive grand blessings
in the coming age, after the spiritual seed has been exalted to glory and
power; as it is written. “They shall obtain mercy (God's promised blessings)
through your mercy” (through the spiritual seed.) – Rom. 11:31.

I posted rough draft material from what will be (unless the outline changes) chapter two in the next volume. Here's a bit of update. This concerns Russell's vist to Berwick PA.

Letters published in the Berwick
area newspapers give us some insight into what interest was found there. In
volume one, we presented Russell’s views on the state of the Christian church.
He saw the church as divided into two classes – true, committed Christians and “the
merely nominal Christian who is such because it is essential to respectability
… but who is restive, even under the modified restraint which the church
exacts, and desires to bring the church down to the level of a “social club’
composed of the respectable of society.” Russell framed this into a prophetic
scheme, but the same observation distressed other committed Christians.

While there was a secularization of
religion in this era, there was another shift that Russell and others found as
disturbing. Russell’s theology was based on Redemption doctrines. Redemption
doctrine is belief in Adamic sin and consequent depravity of the human race.
Darwinian evolution suggested to many that men were progressing. That human
efforts were improving the race pervaded religious and secular thought. Proliferating
invention, new and novel ideas (many of which would be discredited within a
decade or so), gave many the impression that humanity was improving. They
confused inventiveness and cleverness for improvement. This left Russell and
others with conflicted attitudes. WatchTower adherents looked for signs that the
millennium had begun. Inventions provided those. They rejected the idea of
progress without remission of sins, but many sought it outside of or within
religious and quasi-religious movements. This manifested in a number of ways,
among them Christian Socialism, the labor movement, Christian utopian and
social service organizations. Conservative religious rejected the “social
gospel” as contrary to the “divine plan.”

Residents of Berwick noted the
secularization of religion and were as distressed as was Russell. The
Columbia County Democrat printed a letter addressing the issue in its September
24, 1864,
issue. The writer, noted only as “William,” objected to the politicization of
religion in the MethodistChurch. During the Civil War this was, as
we noted in volume one, also an issue for Pittsburgh residents.William visited the Methodist congregation “hoping
to hear the word of god expounded according to the laws laid down in the Holy
Bible.” Instead, “to the utter shame and disgrace of the Christian community,”
he heard a political “stump-speech, too offensive to be uttered in the house of
God.” It was “still more outrageous” that the minister expressed his political
opinions on the Sabbath, “which should be devoted to the praise of God, and not
to political affairs.” The hymn was a patriotic song, not a religious one.

Though he expressed it as religious
outrage, the issue for William was his contrary political belief. He was a
Copperhead. He wanted Lincoln out of office and McClellan elected.
The minister was a Republican. William called the minister a “political negro
head.” While William came at the problem of secularization from a different
perspective than Russell’s, his letter tells us that secularization was an
issue in Berwick.

Casual sexuality was also an issue.
The March 6, 1871, issue of the Montour American, published in nearby Danville, Pennsylvania, editorialized:

We know
several parties who have a habit, in church, as well as elsewhere, of keeping
up a continual cooing to the thorough disgust of everybody about them. If they,
like Armand and Heloise, think themselves consecrated to the “artful god,”
whose arrows have stuck deep in their soft hearts, they should stay home and
enjoy their faith, and not parade it in public places to annoy and disturb the
more high-minded.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Thursday, May 22, 2014

He is sometimes noted as R. W. in Zion's Watch Tower. We need a full biography. We think he was born about 1830. He seems to have died before 1900. He wrote to newspapers promoting his beliefs. He was an Adventist before adopting Watch Tower belief. He seems to have become an Adventist in the 1850s. He lived in Newark, New Jersey in the 1880s.

One
definition of intelligence is the ability to make connections. Someone with a
higher level of intelligence makes them in more complex, more minute ways than others do.
Sometimes this definition makes me feel stupid.

A historian’s
success depends on making connections – connecting event with event, people
with people and people with events. Sometimes those things sit in front of me
and I don’t see them until my slow moving brain clicks.

That
happened today. The click was audible. (That might be an exaggeration, but it’s
not much of one.)

In volume
one of A Separate Identity we identify a “W. W. F.” with Walter F. Fahnestock,
a Pittsburgh hardware merchant. It’s
a solid identification, and in its context just an interesting detail. But we
peruse identities when we can. We were successful with that.

In volume
two (writing in progress) we discuss a Joseph J. Bender. He’s on the obscure
side, even if we know some things about him. To retrieve an obscure fact, I
reread the chapter in which he appears. And lo! Joseph J. Bender worked for Fahnestock
White Lead Company. Now we know Bender’s most probable rout of entry into the WatchTower movement.

This
illustrates why details are important, and it illustrates why sending us things
you may see as of no significance is important.

Some
probable connections are beyond testing. If you read A Separate Identity,
Volume 1, you will remember the newspapers saying Wendell ran off with a girl
named Terry. (You remember that, right?) We see a probable connection and more
reasonable explanation of events in the suggestion that this was one of the
daughters of the Terry family. They hosted the 1873 assembly of those waiting
for Christ that fall or winter. We’ve never found enough documentation to confirm
this. One of you may be more adept at that than we’ve been.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

The previous post isn't about this blog, but the private, invitation only blog. We have no plans to shut this one down. The private blog seems to have outlived its usefulness. It would be simpler to send what we post there to the few truly interested. This blog isn't at issue.

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Has anyone read the post on the private blog? Seems to me that it's worth at least one comment.

Bruce and I expend a considerable amount of work and personal treasure to research Watch Tower history. While we know this is a "low-interest" subject, it seems to me that at least one out of all those who have reading privileges there would say something.The private blog exists so those with more than usual interest can see more deeply into our current research and contribute at least a comment. If no-one comments, then there is no reason for it to continue. Up to you, folks.What can you do? Try this:1. If there is something you don't understand, ask a question. We won't know we've confused you unless you say so.2. If you know something relevant, tell us. Don't presume we know or have something. We might, of course, but we might not. It takes little effort to tell us about something.3. You like a bit of our research as posted on blog 2? Tell us you like it and why. It helps us to know why you might like something we wrote. We pursue areas where others make comments. Sometimes that opens up an entirely new area. Sometimes it leads to a blank wall. But better to know what interests our readers than not know.4. Do your own research. Share it, especially if you find something new or different or see something in a new light. A recent conversation with a professor of history at a nearby university (she's part of a meet for coffee group) has led us to reassess the phrase "secularization" as it relates to late 19th Century western culture. It won't result in a huge change to volume 2, but it will make a change, and make things clearer. She's writing a book. She shared elements of her research over lemon cake and coffee. Her casual comments helped. You can do that too.

Amon Hipsher was a resident of
Ames, Story County, Iowa. Born in Pennsylvania about 1820, he was a successful
and wealthy farmer.[1] Hipsher was active in
Church of God (One Faith) conferences. He was elected conference president in
December 1874.[2] At a subsequent conference
someone objected to him being placed in sole charge of future arrangements,
describing the arrangement as Hipsher acting as a “little pope.” This seems to
have been an objection only to the arrangement, not a comment on his
personality. He declined re-election for the next year at the December 1875
conference. By 1884 the conference was renamed The Christian Conference of
Iowa, and Hipsher was elected vice president.[3]

We know little of his religious
background prior to 1874 beyond the fact that he subscribed to The Heretic
Detector, an anti-Universalist magazine published in Middleburg, Ohio.[4] He
lived in areas reached by Stetson and his closest associates, and there is an
obvious connection on that level. He was one of the first readers of Zion’s
Watch Tower, and in the March 1881 issue Russell addressed a question sent
in by him, writing, “Bro. A. Hipsher, for answer to your question: see ‘Unpardonable
Sin,’ page 3.”

It appears that Russell wrote his
article on unpardonable sin specifically to answer Hipsher’s questions. His
approach was interesting [continue]

Lorenzo Jackson Baldwin was another
Iowa resident. He was born March 2, 1823, in Vermont and died in Madison County
Iowa. He was a small-time farmer in the Mackenburgh, Iowa,
area. In 1883 he wrote to S. A Chaplin, editor of The Restitution,
seeking “a boy between 15 and 20 years old” to live with them for “two or three
years.” He promised “to send him to school winters and pay wages for eight or
nine months in the years.” Baldwin and his wife specifically asked for “a
reader of The Restitution and a believer in the gospel of the kingdom.”[5]

Baldwin was also active among One Faith believers in Iowa.
We find him attending a One Faith conference in September 1875 with an Elder
Baldwin, apparently a relative.[6] We
find him noted in the same questions and answers article in which we met
Hipsher. He apparently asked a flood of questions. Russell’s response was:
“Bro. J. Baldwin: It would require the entire space of Z.W.T. for a year or
more to answer all your questions in full. We commend to you the reading of all
the tracts 3 or 4 times; then read ‘day
dawn.’ You need not expect to obtain all the truth on so great and grand
a subject at one swallow, it is a continuous eating. You must seek. ‘He that
seeketh findeth.’ ‘Then shall we know if we follow on to know the Lord.’ (Hos.
6:3.)”[7]
Based on Russell’s recommendation of Bible Students Tracts number one and two,
we believe that Baldwin’s questions centered on issues of “second probation”
and the reason for and manner of Christ’s return. These were issues that would
have raised questions among Russell’s One Faith readers.

It is evident that some considerable interest came from Ohio
and Iowa which were strongly Age
to Come and had been one of the focus points of Barbour and Russell’s early
ministry.

[1]The 1860 Census returns for Story County, Iowa, say his
real estate was worth five thousand dollars and his personal property worth
five hundred dollars.

I know this is asking the impossible, or the nearly
impossible. We need to answer the following questions:

What was William I. Mann doing between June 1879 and
September 1881?

We know that B. W. Keith preached fairly regularly between
the same dates. Can we uncover where? Do we know what his message was?

The Berwick, Pennsylvania,
believers were a mixed bunch. We can say with certainty that it was composed of
Christadelphian, One Faith (ie: Restitution readers), and Zion’s
WatchTower
adherents. Can we uncover more detail?

Can we find more detail about A. D. Jones’ preaching between
1878 and September 1882?

A “J. L. F.” from Montrose, Pennsylvania,
wrote a poem which was published in the October 1879 issue of Zion’s
WatchTower.
Can we put a name to these initials?

J. S. Lawver exhibited at the Centennial Fair in 1876. It is
highly likely that he met Russell then. Can we either prove or disprove that?

Thursday, May 15, 2014

This is an update of sorts. Separate Identity continues to
sell though slowly. If you read it and liked it, you can help by leaving a
review on lulu.com and by recommending it to your friends.

We’ve
located the Russell v. Brooklyn Eagle transcript. Very little in it adds to our
research for volume two of Separate Identity, but it is interesting. And if we
write the third book in this series, it will be important. My first impression,
having read it quickly, is that Russell should have won his lawsuit.

I’ve
located the A. D. Jones divorce records. We will send for those. If you wish to
donate to defray the expense, there is a donation button on the private blog,
or you may email me for details.

Returning
to the Eagle trial: The one thing that will show up in volume two is detail on
how the earliest traveling evangelists functioned. A new name appears, though
he’s not on the stage in the era covered by S. Ident. He’s a German Evangelical
pastor who left the LutheranChurch
to evangelize WatchTower
teaching. While he’s not a factor in the era we’re writing about, his testimony
gives us details we could only surmise.

I complain
about lack of comments here. I would still like to see more, even if they’re
something like, “I read this site regularly and find it helpful.” But … I spend
time on other history blogs not related to our research. One is run by
historians whose names you might recognize if you read American social history.
It’s a very professionally done blog. They get no more comments than we do. In
a back-sided way, this makes me feel better.

But I’d
still like to see more comments.

Mr. Schulz
has a short hospital stay coming up. It’s not serious. I have eye surgery
toward the end of June. That’s a bit more serious. So if we grow quiet for a
prolonged time, you’ll know why.

If you’re
inclined to play detective, we’re still researching the earliest evangelists. In
a week or so, I’ll post a partial chapter to the private blog. It will give
those who read that some insight into our current research.

We have received No. 1 Vol. 1 of a
paper published in New York
called, Zion’s Day Star, edited by A. D. Jones. It is a monthly of eight
pages containing no advertisements and devoted exclusively to the discussion of
religious topics; does not claim to be the organ of any denomination, and sets
the Bible up as its standard. We quote the following from its introductory
remark:

“Many no doubt will inquire who are
these persons advancing these views’ and, because we are not among the noted
and well known, may feel disposed to carelessly cast aside this sheet, scarcely
reading what is therein contained. But ere you do so we ask your attention for
a short time. First, it is not for you to ask who we are, nor should you decide
either for or against the paper on account of those who are connected with it;
for in and of ourselves we are nothing; but a fair question, for each reader to
ask is, Are the views as here set forth true? Are they supported by God’s
word? If, on examination, you find them so, then they, no us, demand
your attention.

****

The truth of the scriptures is the
only rule of faith by which we will be examined. It is our aim to
teach the truth as free from the terms of the times; to teach it in its entirety.
We are not in bondage to any creed, party or sect, but we claim to be
the Lord’s fee men. We recognize one Head and Master – Jesus Christ; and
all true followers of him as brethren. Therefore, we wish our teachings
compared with “the law and the testimony,” and if any view presented is not in
accordance with the above “there is no light in them,” and we shall consider
you a friend. Acts 17 11. It will be our aim to make plain some of the “dark
sayings and parables” of the word, and we doubt not that the hearts of many will
be made to rejoice as they come to see the beauty and harmony of our
Father’s word.”

The subscription price is nominal
being only 50 cents per year. Whatever they claim as a creed, many of the
articles in the first issue are interesting and contain much truth.